The PIAT: History's Worst Ever Rocket Launcher?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2023
- Thank you Squarespace for sponsoring this video. Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
This video is #sponsored by Squarespace.
Love content? Check out Simon's other UA-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
Thank you Squarespace for sponsoring this video. Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase.
the wrong side won ww2.
Well written. Props to the writer 👏
Those extra 16 pounds over the bazooka is a lot of weight for an already tired and overloaded soldier to carry long distances. Reloading the weapon in combat was very difficult, and the practical rate of fire was low, some soldiers didn't bother carrying extra ammunition since reloading in combat was seen as too risky to bother with. Effectively, you have an anti-tank weapon with a similar range and accuracy to the Panzerfaust, but weighed three times as much. That's not counting the relative unreliability of the projectile which would often fail to fuse if it struck the armor of the target vehicle at a poor angle. Some sources claim that the early projectiles had a failure rate of around 25%, although I'm not sure how this data was gathered. In any case, it was a substandard weapon that was occasionally put to good use, but was still outclassed by its contemporaries in most respects.
It's definitely not the worse rocket launcher ever built. Probably because it's actually a Spigot mortar, not a rocket launcher!
So bad as a rocket launcher it isn't even a rocket launcher!
Beat me to it 👌🏻
@@RogueBrit well, if you leave it almost a week.....😂😉
You nailed it!
I’m no expert, but given its firing arc would it not be a “spigot howitzer” or maybe even a “spigot gun” if we’re using proper artillery terms.
Then again if I fire a mortar at a 90 degree angle does that make it a gun?
Maybe it needs its own term, given its name maybe simply “Spigot projector”
The fact that you don't give away your position when firing it, and can fire it from indoors... Makes for a significant advantage depending on how you use it.
As a 20 year army veteran I qualified on 17 weapon systems. All I will say is that it's better to have and not want than to want and not have. It filled the need and worked. There have been many great weapons and many crap weapons. If it did the job at the time then it was worthy of having it.
Whenever I think of the PIAT I think of Anthony Hopkins in A Bridge Too Far shouting, “Bring up the PIAT! Make sure it’s in range!” And then the soldier fires too early and missed.
Good battle scene on the bridge.
Hahahaha yes.
“A lovely little engagement”
On the plus side, using one of these in combat yielded very high odds of being awarded the Victoria Cross ...
At least one Maj did and lived !
😂👍
I say if using an mass produced weapon sucessfully qualify you for the Victoria Cross it has some flaws.
posthumously
Best joke of all time. ..
...😅😹😂🔫
The piat if used correctly could kill any tank on the battle field. They were also used to mortar enemy troops. They didn't have a deadly back blast like the bazooka and could be used in confined places
A very big advantage no back blast.
@@obelic71that's why they were loved by the guys in Arnhem, it was a great ambush weapon for use in urban fighting.
@@cgi2002 Recepy for a Victoria Cross.
- Use a Piat in anger.
- Let one explode in your face.
- Throw manual primed PIAT grenades at the enemy.
- Get shot several times.
- Get draged unconcious to a first aid station
- Refuse medical treatment after waking up at a first aid station.
- Crawl back to the frontlines.
- Grab an abandoned PIAT.
- Defend the retreating paratroopers.
On the other hand that "deadly backblast" was a feature, not a flaw, and was the reason the bazooka had practically no recoil and so was far more accurate and useful to a much longer range than the PIAT. The Panzerschrek had the same advantages. Not that hard to yell at anyone behind you and get them to clear out. Or better, train your soldiers properly so they knew not to get behind anyone using a bazooka or, for that matter, a recoilless rifle, a weapon with a backblast a lot more dangerous than that of any rocket launcher.
It has to be said that for an expedient anti-armor weapon improvised from a mortar, the PIAT was remarkably effective for what it was. It was a hell of a lot better than nothing, which is what the British troops had to begin with.
@@patrickscalia5088 true, it wasn't a flaw except under very specific circumstances, and often as not those were the circumstances which the british soldiers ended up using the piat to its greatest effect.
Urban combat and dug in defensive positions were the places it proved most effective. You simply can't use any of the rocket based systems inside buildings and narrow streets (like those found in basically all of WW2 europe), or while keeping your head down inside a fortification (be it attacking or defending), but the piat you can. Add in that it is a relatively accurate indirect fire weapon and it allows some interesting options beyond just hitting tanks.
Honestly I personally think it's not fair to compare the piat to the rocket based systems as it was designed with a different style of combat in mind, one at which it proved very effective. The rocket based systems were far better at offensive open warfare, longer distance engagements, but the piat was designed originally as a (desperation) defensive AT weapon, to stop tanks over running your fortifications, that it found a home in urban combat speaks more to the people using it than the weapon itself.
One of the best lines from the movie, "A Bridge to Far"..."Bring up the PIAT!!!!!".
My father served in Sicily, Italy and Holland, with the 1st RCR. I think he served as a rifleman, did recon and forward observing, and ran a mortar crew. I never heard him talk much about PIAT guns. When I was a kid, I asked him if they had Bazookas, (because all kids love bazookas) and he said they had PIAT's, but he said it in a way that told me he didn't think much of them. He seemed to put more emphasis on the Bren gun as a anti-tank weapon, as some rounds had enough to penetrate but not enough to exit, meaning they'd ricochet around inside the crew compartment causing havoc. I tend to think this couldn't be done against all tanks or armor. The attendant at our local RCR museum at Wolseley Barracks told me of a person who brought in a PIAT gun, found in the effects of a veteran who had passed away.
the piat was hard to cock and use at times however in italy they used the piat as a mini mortar due to the terrain and unlike a large amount of the anti tank launchers the piat could be used inside buildings quite safel which does give it alot of versatility
I think that's one reason the Canadians loved it so much. They did a lot of urban fighting and the fact you could fire it in a built up area was a huge advantage. Plus, when your target is a building, accuracy is less of an issue.
@@miffedmax there is few british regiments that done more urban combat than the Canadians, look at the Netherlands thats a really valid point
They were self cocking after the first shot.
well it is a spigot mortar!! and rifle grenades will do the same job but are lighter and easier to carry!!
@@keithmoore5306 however the explosive charge of the piat gives it a sweet spot that rifle grenades would struggle with but having more is always better of both
I met a man who fought in the Warsaw Uprising a few years back. He told me there were very few Allied air drops but if one got through people really hoped it had a Piat in it. They were really valued weapons. I guess in an urban environment they were very effective against armour.
The were great in urban combat. Fire a bazooka or Panzershriek (sp?) from inside a building and you get fried by the back blast, PIAT no problem. Far from perfect but like most weapons, effective if used correctly in a suitable environment.
That's it yeah. It had advantages, namely that you could fire it in enclosed spaces and without giving your position away. Very useful for urban warfare.
@@petemelbourne42 The trade off is it might break your arm. But it's Velocity (or lack of to be specific) is the bigger issue. Usable sure, but most of the other AT things in the field were better for troops.
It was effective against the Panzer II and halftracks, Pretty much the heaviest armor that was deployed to Warsaw
There was a Warsaw uprising a few years back?!
The tank museum, Bovington has a video about the PIAT in which they demonstrate how to cock the spring while under fire, a procedure which looks to all the world like a man kicking and wrestling a mechanical pig to the ground.
But you only have to cock it once then the firing re-cocks it.
Surely, as it was self loading when cocked, ( most of the time anyway ), you wouldn't need to cock it under fire, as a rule.
@@onastick2411 You're an optimist are you? I've heard of your kind. 😘
There's enough formal complaints out there, even from men who quite liked the weapon, that we know it was a regular occurrence. Springs get old or too cold or too warm. The powder charge can vary in power with temperature, or age, or moisture level. Handling can be an issue. And there's always bad luck.
But even if the re-cocking worked 999 out of a 1000 times, the army would still develop, and teach, a procedure to do so manually under combat conditions.
Armies are like that, they generally try to avoid sending out soldiers with weapons they are unable to use, because soldiers are simple people. And being simple they may start reasoning that:
1. Having a non-functioning weapon is like being disarmed.
2. Being disarmed is like not being a soldier.
3. Not being a soldier means being a civilian.
4. Being a civilian means going home when you feel like it and not having to listen to people with fancy stars and bars on their uniform.
Like I said: Simple people. It's much better to just develop a procedure they can use to make a non-functioning weapon into one that functions. Even if that means having to wrestle a mechanical pig to the ground.
@@exharkhun5605 A pessimist is what a optimist calls a realist.
@@onastick2411 An optimist is what a realist calls a pessimist. 😁
Seems like the PIAT did well under very controlled conditions. But in the chaotic battlefield, in the fog of war, I think solider, from any military, would rather have a different weapon, such as the panzerfaust, panzerschreck, and even the bazooka. The weapon wasn't useless, however, and, if the soldier had training with it, it was effective.
British Army "stfu soldier"
I think anyone would rather have had a panzerfaust, which just had so much more killing power than anything in the Allied inventory (although also a significantly shorter useful range). But compared to the bazooka (which generally required the firer to expose themselves due to the backblast, and yet had slightly less hitting power) or nothing at all (what the Soviets had), I think the PIAT did ok.
@@ChrisFarrell, I agree, but I think many allied soldiers would prefer the bazooka as it was easier to carry and operate, as well as better range. However, the PIAT had better destructive power. The bazooka proved to be longer lived than the PIAT, in its later marks. We have to keep in mind that these were early attempts at infantry antitank munitions. They shaped the evolution of such weapons post war based on their strengths and weaknesses.
On the contrary. Those were the conditions it excelled in. It killed tanks , it cleared houses and trenches and it did not give your position away. Eccentric, but effective.
@@ChrisFarrell In an urban setting the PIAT could be fired from inside buildings or under cover unlike the other A/T weapons you mention
A long time ago I met Smokey Smith the Canadian soldier who earned the VC for taking out a panther with PIIAT. He said he got lucky with it and was not a fan of it.
That might be the Panther shown in the video…
@@TraditionalAnglican - No, he knocked out a Mk IV.
@@JayM409 - The record indicates he knocked out a Panzer V Panther at 10 meters and damaged another while protecting a wounded comrade while his unit was establishing a bridgehead on the Savio River on the night of 21-22 October,1944. That’s what’s on the Commendation for the VC.
“Far from perfect” describes all military equipment which is why mo weapon system is universally beloved. “Good enough if you use it right” describes every weapon I was ever issued. By that standard, I don’t think we can revile the Piat as notably bad.
1:06 the soldiers verdict
13:25 other sources
17:56 closing thoughts
Reading about the PIAT it was an interesting stop-gap. Basically a direct-fire mortar launcher.
My father was in the RAF Regiment and used this in 1948 in various areas he said it kicked like a heifer. But once you got used to it, it was deadly. They used to have a 2nd man lean into the number 1's shoulder to make it more stable. Wish he was alive to see this video he would have loved it.
I can visualize that. In our TXARNG State marksmanship unit, we had one shooter (triple distinguished, BTW) who did all the tax crap and owned an intact M-14. We were warming it up at the Camp Swift MG range one day, and I put a three-round burst on a 55-gal drum about 150M downrange. He tried it and his only his first round would hit the drum; the rest would go high. I suggested aiming the first round at the bottom left corner of the drum, and then he was able to get two rounds onto it before they climbed off. Then I stood behind him, said, "you're not applying enough ass!", and braced some of my weight on him. Success! Of course, I had about sixty pounds on him, so I could place the burst unaided.
Off topic, but this was a particularly and exceptionally well-written script
Not noted in this otherwise excellent presentation was the large size of the projectile warhead compared with the Bazooka and the Panzerschrek rockets. With the effect of high explosive anti tank rounds not dependent on velocity but surface area, PIAT could defeat thicker armour than either of the rockets. The Panzerfaust also quickly increased the projectile warhead size, when in service. As deterrents, rockets might be more effective because of range - but for close up tank killing the projectiles were more effective.
Worth noting was that the PIAT had trouble achieving its on-paper 100mm at 0 degrees penetration for quite a while and was downgraded to 75mm, eventually they tracked the issue down to a manufacturing error that allowed the primary explosive charge to detach from the "forming cone" inside the warhead and become misshapen. I believe that was about half a year into service, the first major update to the bombs after six months was addressing them failing to detonate at all (caused by a design flaw in the "detonation train" that carried the explosion of the fuze down to the underside of the hollow charge).
@@CruelestChris My understanding is that the PIAT used a HESH charge, which was different to a shaped charge in that it relied on the shockwave of the delayed explosion squashed up against the armour producing high velocity spalling on the inside of the tank, damaging internal components and injuring or killing the crew.
@@catinthehat906
No, no HESH for PIAT.
@@CruelestChris I've checked and you are right.
My grandfather used the PIAT a lot and never once shot it at a tank. He was in Italy with the PPCLI and they fired it more often at buildings and a couple trucks. Said it was heavy, but blew walls out of brick and stone buildings really good. They used them a lot in Ortona to blow out walls, and window frames.
I've read that PIAT stood for Point It At Tanks. 😅
Experienced Infantry with a short ranged, effective anti tank weapon has little to fear from armored vehicles. Yes, the PIAT could have been lighter, and easier to use, but it’s ability to penetrate armored vehicles was well noted.
Seriously, Simon. You could describe paint drying and people would still tune in to your videos.
I think Simon has a 'Narrated Paint Drying' UA-cam channel as one of his 34,654 & 3/5 UA-cam Channel Empire.😁
When it comes to military stuff the channel can be pretty bad yeah. Probably blame the writing team rather than the presenter tho.
"We've all heard the expression 'as boring as watching paint dry,' but have you ever wondered what, exactly, was happening when paint goes from the familiar goopy mess we've used to decorate our bedroom walls or our first apartment to the firm and dry substance all around us? On today's episode of Brain Blaze, we will dive into the science, the *chemistry*... of paint drying. Thank you Danny for today's script."
As we observe the process of paint drying, we witness a marvel of chemistry and physics in action. At first, the paint appears wet and fluid, but as it begins to dry, we see the fascinating transformation of its chemical structure. As the solvents in the paint evaporate, the polymers in the paint begin to coalesce, forming a continuous film that adheres to the surface.
But the process of paint drying is not just a simple chemical reaction. It is influenced by a variety of factors, such as temperature, humidity, and air flow. As we watch paint dry, we can see the effects of these factors on the drying process. For example, in a dry and warm environment, the paint may dry quickly and evenly, while in a humid environment, the drying process may be slowed down, and the paint may develop a mottled or uneven appearance.
But it is not just the chemical and physical aspects of paint drying that are fascinating. We can also observe the effects of the paint on the surface it is applied to. As the paint dries, it can interact with the surface, creating a variety of effects. For example, on a rough or textured surface, the paint may accumulate in the crevices, creating a pleasing contrast between light and shadow. On a smooth surface, the paint may create a glossy or matte finish, depending on the type of paint and its composition.
As we watch paint dry, we can also appreciate the beauty of its colors and pigments. Paints are made up of a variety of pigments, each with its unique properties and characteristics. As the paint dries, we can see the pigments interacting with each other and with the surface, creating a stunning array of colors and textures. Some pigments may appear more vibrant when wet, while others may take on a richer, deeper tone as they dry.
But perhaps the most remarkable aspect of watching paint dry is its meditative and calming effect. As we observe the slow and steady transformation of the wet paint into a dry, solid film, we can appreciate the simple beauty of this process. In a world that is often fast-paced and hectic, the act of watching paint dry can be a welcome respite, allowing us to slow down and appreciate the simple wonders of the natural world.
In conclusion, watching paint dry may seem like a mundane activity, but as we have seen, it is a fascinating and complex process that offers a wealth of insights into the world around us. From the chemical reactions that occur as the paint dries, to the effects it has on the surface and the colors and textures it creates, there is much to appreciate and admire in this seemingly simple activity. So the next time you find yourself waiting for paint to dry, take a moment to appreciate the wonder and beauty of this process, and you may be surprised at what you discover.
Don't forget its key advantage, it was an indirect fire weapon. Which in northern France with the pure number of hedgerows and roads in defalade meant you had 2 choices for fighting, stick your head over the side, or lob something, this was really good at the lob something bit. It was a dual use weapon, sure it was effective short range anti-tank, but it was also a mortar. Throw in you could use it indoors or in a ditch without harming yourself or your comrades with back blast, and you start to realise why some units loved it.
PIAT was great depending on the memoirs read, it could kill a tank without giving your position away, and that was a priceless perk
That's a really good point. I wish that Simon had mentioned that.
Very true. If the target tank was being defended by infantry exposing your position with the back blast of a bazooka would be suicidal. A PIAT gave its crew vital seconds to bug out. When Harry Caine won his VC he was able to relocate re load and fire several times without getting shredded by infantry fire.
yes - firing an immediate ignition direct fire rocket such as the US and German weapons couldn't be done from within a confined space and did create a line of smoke pointing directly to the now exposed firer- as tanks generally operate in teams and all have machine-guns this creates a 'suicide effect' to using the other weapons. Using a panzerschreck or panzerfaust also meant the side you were shooting at might have a churchill crocodile - and no mother's son wants to go that way.
@@bitterdrinker
Well that's not really a great example since Caine got made on his first shot twice and was almost killed the second time (IIRC his spotter _was_ killed). You still had a puff of smoke, and given the infantry operating with a tank could see which side it had been hit on, with your range at about 40 yards it wasn't too hard to figure out where you might be.
My grandpa (Canadian Army) hated it for anything other than clearing structures. Against tanks and vehicles, he said he'd rather throw rocks, he said it missed 90% of the time whenever someone fired it.
That weight is also a serious drawback. Nearly double a Bazooka.
they might as well used antitank rifle grenades! at least easier to lug around and a bit more accurate on moving targets!!
@@Shoelessjoe78 The PIAT literally weighs the exact same as an M2 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, which has been standard in almost every NATO country since WW2. So the weight is not the issue, and this coming from someone who’s actually schlepped one up and down hills.
The PIAT was an early shaped charge weapon, which had its limitations and deployment considerations, like any weapon system. Even the 84mm mentioned above certainly isn’t perfect… the back blast will straight-up kill anyone standing behind you, and it CANNOT be used in any sort of confined area (such as from a window) for that reason, unlike a PIAT.
QED, every weapon has strengths and weaknesses, and even modern equivalents are not perfect either. I wouldn’t be so quick to shit-can the PIAT; I’d still rather a PIAT than a Boys rifle.
@@alfrede.neuman9082 Weight is always an issue. Always. I'm also prior service. So I am speaking from experience with regards to weight.
You're talking about Cold War era equipment. I'm talking about the three weapon systems of the time. The PIAT weights significantly more than it's peers of the day. It has less range and less accuracy to boot.
Plus side. No back blast. I'll give you that.
@@Shoelessjoe78 Yep, you could plausibly attack a tank from inside a garden shed with the thing. the biggest (and possibly only, depending on opinion) advantage of the thing is that you could use it practically anywhere you could fit it.
When the brit paratroopers took pegasus bridge,the Germans counter attacked with panzer units. A brit paratrooper used the piat gun on these panzers and actually blew them to hell with it
A little difficult for the PIAT to be the world's worst rocket launcher when it's a spigot mortar.
One of my grandpa’s WW2 stories was how he robbed a store in Germany with one! The shopkeeper held up a shotgun when he came in… grandpa left and came back a few minutes later with the piat and helped himself to the inventory. (Never clarified if he took money or just the goods… his only explanation was “It was a war zone, everyone was hungry and too broke to pay for anything, and EVERYONE was hating the Germans!”)
He was seriously a reckless little sh*t in the army who drank VERY heavily and had lied about his age to join up. My Dad personally thought he held the place up for booze money. He got in trouble SO many times I’m amazed he wasn’t dishonourably discharged.
Regardless of what one thinks of it it's surely one of the most unique and interesting weapons ever designed.
I think a better comparison would be to the panzerfaust than to the panzer shrek , both were very effective if you could get close enough,and had good aim . However to get within a hundred or so yayds to a tank that had infantry support or other tanks close by ( that had weapons that could kill you from a mile away) took balls of steel. Better than nothing, but not ideal
That's a really good point about the danger of being so close to a tank with infantry support and/or that the tank that you are aiming at and/or a nearby tank probably had a couple of machine guns mounted on it.
Actually the danger is even worse than you indicated. I looked it up and the range of the PIAT and the Panzerfaust was only 100 FEET, not 100 yards (per the Encyclopedia Brittanica).
@@dinsdalemontypiranha4349 - The Panzerfaust came in variants. The first was the PFk30m (98ft), then the PF30m, the PF60m (196ft), and then the PF100m (328ft), so only the first two had shorter range. The most common was the PF60m. The effective range was stencilled right on the warhead.
@@JayM409 Thanks!
As I have learned over the years, if something works and their are those who say it does not should be considered Operator Error. As for those complaining about the PIAT most of us already some people would bitch about how hard an Apple is to eat.
I thought the PIAT used the recoil for re-cocking. Not that this would work every time, but that used a lot of the recoil energy. I get the impression that proper training was important. How many soldiers were trained to be the primary user?
The PIAT was meant to make very little sound when firing and as other said it had no backblast or muzzle flash to attack attention when firing. The same principle was enlarged slightly later in the war for the Royal navy's hedgehog launchers for depth charges.
The Piat's big advantage, and limitation, was no backblast. Since then, armies have decided that backblast can to be worked around.
The PIAT is not a rocket launcher it is a spigot bomb launcher the recoil is hard, it is award to initially cock and the range is short but under the right conditions it can penetrate 4 inches of armour my favourite story is about Smoky Smith of the Seaford Highlanders of Canada he was defending a hill in Italy when his section came under German artillery and armour attack, everyone but him was wounded or killed 5 German tanks approached his position in the middle of the night using a PIAT and a tommy gun he jumped from fox hole to fox hole fired both weapons giving an impression the position was heavily defended all 5 tanks was destroyed and the Germans retreated he won the VC for his successful one man stand.
Back when I was a young Feller and I joined the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada they told us all about VC winner Smokey Smith. Armed with a PIAT and a Sten gun he stood by his wounded buddy and drove off a squad of Germans and disabled a Panther. As you say, subjective. When it's what you've got at hand and you blow up the scary tank with it, who cares if it kicks like a mule? It's going to be your best friend.
My Father serviced in the Hampshire's during the 2nd world war. He said about the P.I.A.T. was one broken tank, one broken shoulder.
After action questionnaires by Canadian infantry officers revealed that they liked the PIAT for its ability to be used as an ad hoc mortar, apparently at ranges up to 400 yards. These questionnaires were used as the basis of a book by Robert Engen called Canadians Under Fire.
I imagine those questionnaires were obviously useful and very important. But still, the general idea of leaving a review on how well something kills people or how well something prevents you from being killed seems like such a disheartening task to be partaking. With hindsight being 20-20, it's hard not to devolve it into a Yelp review for homicide, and I'd find it hard not to rank absolutely anything as a sarcastic "1 out of 5 stars, I'd rather be doing literally anything else but using this ridiculous murder device. Feels good in the hands though, and the aesthetic is great, so there's that!"
@@K31TH3R In the PIAT's case at least, it was less about killing people and more about killing _tanks._ That happen to have people inside them. Tanks are terrifying things for a crunchie infantryman to come up against, especially when it's actively trying to kill you. In those circumstances you're going to celebrate that you're alive, the tank is dead, and the tank crew are either dead, captured, or in full retreat. You aren't going to get terribly moralistic about the "murder" you've supposedly committed, essentially re-framing it as self-defence.
You may think it's hypocritical to view mass homicide and warfare as different things, but the fact is, essentially all soldiers and most civilians disagree with you, and there are solid arguments for why they are different.
@@akizeta I can't disagree with anything you've said here, and I appreciate your viewpoint. Because of the kind of work I do, and because of Asperger's, my mind has a tendency to deconstruct absolutely anything and everything into it's base parts, and it means I often don't make a lot of sense to others, or worst case, I unintentionally offend.
@@K31TH3R You didn't offend me, don't worry, I'm just a squishy civilian, too. I can't even say you'd be definitively _wrong_ to equate homicide and warfare. It's just that "murder" is an emotion-laden word for NTs, and they will get their backs up when you apply it to sanctioned killings. Best to stay away from it, except for legally-defined cases.
@@K31TH3R People forget that soldiers in wars aren't just showing up as if it was a paintball match. These are men who took years out of their lives to train as professionals for the most serious job they could possibly ever have. The fate of nations and millions of innocent lives were at stake, and so they took it very seriously. It's easy to over look that, until you pick up, for example, a pamphlet like "Army Training Memorandum" (and I recommend you do). This series was put out by the British War Office (with duplicates printed in Canada for their own troops), and contained all kinds of little hints on how to best employ equipment, what kinds of things the enemy was doing, etc. It was literally life and death stuff. And while the survival expectancy of an infantryman in World War II was probably measured in months (after which time he was either dead or wounded so badly he couldn't return to his unit), the length of time in service for each individual was generally measured in years. The comparison to Yelp doesn't hold up. Yelp is mostly a pastime for bored first-worlders. The questionnaires, on the other hand, were a scientific means of refining tactics and procedures in a constantly evolving technological race. Compare weapons systems in 1939 to those of 1944 and you will see the kind of changes that infantry had to learn and master.
My Dad fired the PIAT in the British army in 1949, and he told me some stories about it. He overall liked firing it, but he said it was really hard to cock, and it had tremendous recoil. He said you could actually watch the projectile go to the target. It was that slow, so good luck hitting a moving target. He said the big advantage of it was that unlike a Bazooka, it could be fired from within an enclosed space because there was no rocket motor blast. I'd sooner have a Javelin, but that's way in the future.
“At first, we tried hot dog Pooh. The PIAT was way better.”
I think it was the best we could design with the limited rocket knowledge that we had at the time.
The PIAT rounds were successfully hand thrown in Arnham during the battle there.
Another problem with the user testimony is survivor bias - people for whom the Piat failed to work for would be more likely to be dead, skewing the data towards a positive view of the weapon
In technical terms PIAT is closer to a crude mortar than rocket launcher as base of the projectile has a small propelling charge.Closest comparison would be the fist charge also know as PzFaust.
PIAT had major benefit in comparison although extremely loud weapon with a very notable firing sound PIAT,but having very little flash in comparison to german and us counterparts made it a weapon that would cause rising bloody pressure amongst panzer crews as unless fired in sort of enviroment where there was chance of kicking up dust PIAT is rather difficult to quickly pinpoint the user.
The sound of a PIAT firing is reported to have been the same as a sot gun ,lightly to have gone unnoticed in the larger noise of battle.
Every few years me and a dear friend watch a bunch of war movies for a weekend. When we get to a bridge too far at some point we have to pause it and have probably an hour discussion, sometimes heated about what the allies could have done. My friend always ends up (in good humor) yelling about the English and why the hell they couldn't have borrowed some bazookas from the 101st 😊
Although the bazooka was loved, and has been almost deified, it was actually far less effective in combat during WWII. It may have been due to tactics or training, but the PIAT got better results (to just about everyone's surprise).
Keep up the awesome work Simon, and thank you for the informative/educational videos!
🫡totally agree
I guess it just comes down to having the right tool for the job. Hitting a tank in an open field you’d want a bazooka or panzerfaust, hitting a tank in a town or city you’d want a piat. It’s not bad, it just performs poorly when used in unfavourable conditions…just like anything else would. Same way you wouldn’t try to shoot targets at medium-long range with a sten gun.
I'm not someone with any knowledge on the subject but I would have thought the lack of back blast, and accompanying smoke, would be a serious advantage when fighting. I assume sneaking up on a tank, firing, and then running away is how I would approach battling a tank. Not leaving a plume of smoke would be in my opinion a big plus.
if your weapon won’t ever reliably hit the target all other advantages are kinda rendered null
Unfortunately the problem is you need to get VERY close to a tank meaning if it is infantry supported you're probably going to get shot before you're in range... The other downside is if you want to run away carrying the damn thing, it's twice the weight of a loaded bazooka because of the massive spring assembly and tube. It's best as an ambush weapon against slow or unmoving tanks in urban environments, or buildings... Which means any versatility added from lack of back blast is lost due to lack of range and the weight.
Plus it wasn't silent or anything, it's a mortar.
@@George_M_ it was silent where it was fired not where it exploded
@@V3RTIGO222 it had the same range as a bazooka
Despite being heavy, clunky, and awkward to use, the PIAT was nonetheless EFFECTIVE against enemy armor at close range, and that is what counted most. The same could be said of the British STEN submachinegun. Here were two, expedient, quickly designed, stamped metal weapons that appeared crude in the extreme but got the job done and did what was expected of it. For these two weapons, their pluses just barely outnumbered their minuses, making both effective and useful on the battlefield.
The British Army could have adopted the American M1 Bazooka in WW2, in time for the Tunisian Campaign in late 1942. But the British were dismayed at the large, visible, and dangerous backblast rear area of the M1 Bazooka, which revealed the location of the user. The British authorities demurred and placed the American Bazookas into storage. The expedient PIAT became the standard Commonwealth infantry portable anti-tank weapon, which was effective.
The end of WW2 underscored the obsolescence of the PIAT. The British Army took the practical approach and adopted the American M20 Super Bazooka as an interim infantry portable anti-tank weapon system until domestic British modern anti-tank weapons could be designed.
The moral of the story is that the PIAT's detractors and critics may have been right about many things. But at the end of the day, the PIAT destroyed enemy tanks and armor, and that is what counted at all.
This was an interesting video as I have read hundreds of books on WW2 in my life and on average they seemed to cast the PIAT in a poor light. I remember reading one account at Pegasus Bridge were a PIAT operator fired twice, one shot missing a tank that was passing him, one shot failed to detonate and with only one shot left he managed to hit a weapons rack on the back of the tank which exploded. Other tanks worried about what exactly the English Paratroopers had to defend themselves with retreated.
To answer the question in the subject bar though, is it the worse rocket launcher in history, it should really compare it to the Bazooka and the Panzerschreck.
Given the launch mechanism and ballistic characteristics, it would be fairer to compare it to the panzerfaust as its basically and anti tank mortar
The legend goes that the PIAT had the one massive advantage of not giving away where is was fired from . Unlike a bazooka pipe recoiled weapon which gives off a lot of smoke and flame . In the original film of Arnhem the scene with the panther getting brewed up was filmed with two PAIT teams . One hit the tank head on , stopping it . The second crew hitting the flank . The tank crew unable to locate the origin of the shot .........
I was an antiarmor operator for a goodly portion of my first active duty enlistment. I trained on and carried/rode with, variously, the 106mm RR, 90 mm RR, TOW and LAW. Of course the TOW and LAW are rockets/missles and the RRs are vented-breech guns, and today the AT gunners have more advanced rockets/missiles. You haven't humped til you've humped that blasted 90. In one unit, our 90 went down and was waiting on parts. We got a mission and my ammo bearer and I each carried about a mule-load of LAWs...fun, fun.
If I had that to do over, I'd load a grenade vest full of AT grenades but trade the M203 for an "antique" M79!
I've not watched this video yet so I dont know if you've covered this but can I just say the PIAT isn't a rocket launcer as it didn't launch rockets. Anyway back of to the shed to rearrange the model railway.
I didn't expect him to mention the Cal Highs... what a pleasant surprise!
The Calgary Highlanders website posted copies of the infantry questionnaires on their site for public dissemination - nice to see someone making good use of it. For what it is worth, "W.L. Lyster" refers to "Bill" Lyster who was also a Calgary Highlander.
Thank you for approaching this subject. Military vets love to tell their stories, and the more embellished it is, the more amazing, the better lol. For example, we used to go out to the microwave dish, interrupt communications, and beam it right into our lunch to warm it up. We did not care if it started a war, we just wanted warm food. WAIT, what I just said is totally untrue, or was it?
PIAT had 2 situational advantages over the other typical weapons discussed in this video. 1) It could be fired from an enclosed space such as the room of a house 2) It didn't immediately give away the location of the firer if the weapon missed it's target.
In the photo at 1:06, we can see soldiers of the Polish Home Army (AK) during the Warsaw Uprising, being very happy to retrieve several PIATs from an allied air drop. But of course, for these fighters, any piece of weaponry was like a treasure.
Considering it was not a rocket launcher , this is an accurate title .
It is possible that a piat fired one the most important shots on d day a piat used by British glider troops assault on pegasis Bridge to prevent german reserves being brought up in the early hours of June the 6th 2 panzers assaulted the bridge but the first one was hit by a piat and the armour withdrew preventing the loss of the bridge and a armoured assault on the beach heads.
During the Pegasus Bridges fiight some small german boats armed with 20mm autocannons came down the Caen canal. One of tem was disabled by a PIAT and the others fled down the canal straight at the Royal Navy supporting the landings
I've read accounts saying the PIAT was actually preferred as it was a 'smokeless' projectile not giving away the firing position. It was the PIAT that kept the PARAs fighting at Arnhem, when they ran out, the battle for the bridge was lost.
1:10 - Chapter 1 - The soldiers verdict
3:10 - Mid roll ads
4:30 - Back to the video
13:30 - Chapter 2 - Other sources
18:00 - Chapter 3 - Closing thoughts
One thing missed out about the PIAT was its usefulness in house to house fighting, it was often used to blow holes in buildings.
Another important thing about the PIAT was it's simple construction, Britain could build a a pipe with a big spring a lot easier than paying for (or building) rocket motors and magnetos...
As you’ve said, it’s what the user (or above) decides. On top of carrying 100-120lbs for hours, days, weeks. Given many biomes, altitudes or terrain, adding 32 lbs plus ammo isn’t easy in any manner. Been there done that for rucking, give it a try!
Thank you. This dude has obviously never been in the military or even hiked for that matter. 16 extra pounds is huge, its a big fuckin deal 10 miles later.
Carry a M47 with day sight
It seems like it was a faff to cock the weapon for firing its first bomb, and long range was a bit optimistic for use, however it does seem to have been effective for those who could get the best out of it. The most famous being another veteran of the Battle of Arnhem: Major Robert Cain VC (he used a PIAT to knock out at least 4 Tiger Tanks, helping change the situation from a catastrophic defeat, into a relatively safe withdrawal, preventing his troops (and himself) from being taken prisoner by the Germans)
It did not use a rocket so had no back blast. It could be used in more indoor locations than bazookas. In theory, it would re-cock itself after firing, saving the operator from back strain.
That being said, the users were brave men!
The British (and to some extent Canadians) had an advantage in that, for training purposes, some personnel ( normally NCOs and Junior officers) with recent combat experience were cycled back to Britain to contribute to training and exercises at "Battle School". There were sometimes heated discussions about tactics and equipment between those who had been in Rural Normandy, Mountainous Italy and Burma and Urban Netherlands and Germany. I attended in Summer of '45 training to be a signaller in an Airlanding Infantry battalion in Burma/Malaya ( My training battalion was the Buffs). There was some discussion of the utility of the PIAT for " Bunker Busting " as armour was not so common.
The PIAT was still on the inventory into the '50s ( I believe it was used in Suez '56) and was sold abroad.
I have held one of these. No munitions for it, but a collector in Hamilton, New Zealand, has one in his collection.
Surprisingly solid construction.
Simon it might be worth looking at the Victoria Cross citation of Major Robert Cain. He used a PIAT and 2" mortar to take out German tanks during the battle of Arnhem
That man was so hardcore he fired the mortar from the hip🎖
Advantages of the PIAT over rocket-launcher ATWs: 1) it doesn't give away its position when firing, 2) it doesn't endanger anyone on your own side behind you, 3) you can use it from within a building or bunker or other enclosed space, which is particularly useful in an urban setting. Of course there are situations in which a bazooka was better, but also plenty of situations where a bazooka was worse.
You can't damn a weapon if it works and it's all you have!!
I know from experience that every single piece of equipment gets heavier as the warfighter progresses, with the sole exception of canteens and Camelbacks...lol
Good video & script with a good analysis. The PIAT was a serviceable 1st generation infantry anti-tank launcher. I think a similar analysis of the 2.39-in WWII M1/M1A1/M9/M9A1 Bazooka may find some of the same complaints.
My father told me that a good shot could blow a tank track off, immobilizing it; but they were not able to penetrate a tanks armor.
Actually they were the one anti-tank weapon that could reliably penetrate tank armour. But you had to hit it square or it would bounce off.
One point missed is that it could be used as a short range mortar. As an AT weapon it had its positives and negatives, but it had other uses that actual rocket launchers (I don't think the PIAT was a rocket launcher) could not carry out.
It's a spigot mortar by definition, and you only had to cock it once, after that, the projectile would recock the weapon
I would strongly advise searching on youtube for 'Major Cain's VC action' where a certain Mr clarckson takes you through how to use one and how Major Cain won his VC (clarckson father in law). Aditional note the Wireless No19 @90lbs maybe correct but it was a vehicular set. Infantry caried the No.38 set around 10lb
Details of the study can be found in Robert Engen's book 'Canadians Under Fire: Infantry Effectiveness in the Second World War.' There were 161 respondents from a wide variety of units, not just the Calgary Highlanders (My Grandfathers WWI Regt). The PIAT was rated more highly (74 mentions) than any other weapon in use at the time. The closest was the BREN, with 54 calling it outstanding. The top 5 are below. The rest taper off rapidly
PIAT: 74
BREN: 54
3 inch mortar: 44
No 36 Grenade: 33
No 77 grenade: 24
The worst weapon was the STEN gun, with 45 listing it as ineffective.
Because the PIAT was a spigot launcher, it had no back-blast, so it didn't give away the firer's position. It could also be safely fired from inside a building. After firing the recoil re-cocked the weapon, although sometimes this didn't happen.
A video on the Panzerschreck would be awesome as a follow up. Being the most 'effective' choice had its drawbacks. Mainly the rocket exhaust that would burn the operator without the shield (added on later versions) and the inability to comfortably use it indoors.
The panzerfaust was likely the most effective purely because of number and ease of use. Simple and effective.
If there are few noticeable advantages the PIAT has to the shaped charge rocket launchers (Bazooka and Panzerschreck), it doesn't have a backblast, since it's operated via spring mechanism, meaning it can be used more safely from inside a building. The projectiles of those rocket launchers, unlike the PIAT, also leave a smoke trail meaning the operators have a plausible to very high chance of being detected by opposing forces.
One huge benefit is that it doesn’t have a back blast. When a Carl Gustav was being fired us tank crews call them “Target, self identifying” due the huge back blast.
OK ya'll it's that time to cue the Bridge Too Far PIAT memes!
"Bring up the PIAT!!!!!"
As soon as I saw the thumbnail, I thought of that scene. It was a great scene from one of my favorite war films.
@@gregwasserman2635 true that, an absolute classic
@@JDFloyd *grandad in the German war museum having a flashback*
This was a good episode, props. Well narrated and well investigated.
PIAT can't be taken in isolation though... but Must be looked at in context, and the overall role it filled.
Britain in WW2 had truly Excellent anti tank guns.
The QF 6 pounder was world leading in its day, and was in turn superseded by the 17 pounder when German armour got heavier.
PIAT wasn't intended to be the primary anti tank weapon, but was there to fill the gaps where those excellent anti tank guns could not (or would not) be used. Built up terrain. Limited line of sight. Close action.
In That role, not only was PIAT perfectly adequate, it had one significant advantage over the Bazooka and Panzerschreck.
It could be fired from Within a building.
(All but Impossible for the other two, due to backblast and overpressure)
Due to its spigot mortar nature, it didn't give away the position of the shooter, unlike the other two.
It was also dramatically Quieter to shoot than the other two, which again, aided the shooter from attracting accurate return fire.
Yes, it had its very real limitations.
Range primarily (though, as previously mentioned, the British/Empire/Commonwealth forces had excellent medium and long range anti tank guns, so, in actual usage? This proved less of a downside than most might think).
Its other (and unconquerable) downside was scalability.
You Could build a bigger, harder hitting bazooka.
You Could build a bigger, harder hitting panzerschreck...
...But you couldn't Really build a bigger harder hitting PIAT.
As it was, its unique operating system meant it was an absolute Pig to cock for its first shot (the auto cocking function in follow up shots was, "less than Perfectly reliable" though seemed to work most of the time) and making it bigger and harder hitting would have made cocking it all but impossible.
That's not even considering the increase to weight of what was Already a beast of a thing to carry!
PIAT may not have had the range of its contemporaries, nor the sheer destructive power of their Later models... But even taken out of context as a stand alone system?
It was more flexible, being usable in Any location, exposing its operator to less danger to get the shot off.
It was relatively quiet, so better in ambush situations... and in situations where shooting at range was vital, (or indeed possible) Other systems admirably filled that role.
Ultimately it was an engineering dead end, being unable to be "improved" to keep up with armour advancements after the war, (and struggling against German heavies in the latter years Of the war) and so, other systems based on different principles replaced it in its role... but few commanders would be daft enough to send armour, Especially heavies (with extremely limited visibility) into the sort of built up or dense terrain that PIAT excelled in... markedly reducing (if not Entirely negating) the very real downside of its short range.
The extra range and hitting power (of the later models) and lighter weight of its contemporaries may have been qualities looked upon with envy... but the Lack of flexibility of those other systems in built up terrain Is a significant downside that cannot be overlooked.
Each system did something the other couldn't.
What PIAT Couldn't do (shoot at tanks effectively, at ranges of over 100 or so yards) was a gap filled by the QF 6 pounder and later even the 17 pounder.
An additional plus to the PIAT that you didn't mention was the fact that it was a much better ambush weapon than the bazooka or panzershreck.
Because it was a shaped charge launched by a spring, not an actual rocket, the PIAT could be fired from a prone position and from very tight confines-something that the backblast from a bazooka or Panzershreck would make impossible. In addition, because there was no real chemical propellant involved, you didn't get muzzle flash, so your position remained hidden (although admittedly this advantage would fall through if you had to stand up to recock the weapon as described.)
In a hypothetical Battle of Stalingrad/Berlin-style urban warfare situation, I would certainly take a PIAT over a rocket launcher, urban warfare plays to its strengths and mitigates most of its weaknesses.
Me, a Battlefield 5 player, seeing this:
"Yea... facts."
The rest of the BF5 community:
"Skill issue."
Me:
"Yea... facts..."
So after watching this video I've decided that this weapon is actually effective and actually good and that I am, indeed, just hot trash... yay...
The PIAT had other advantages like that it could be launched from an enclosed space without cooking the operator,and unlike a rocket launched anti tank weapon it did not show the enemy exactly where you fired it from.
What was not made clear is that the rate of fire from the PIAT was significantly higher than the Bazooka and the Panzerfaust.
There is also the persistent myth that weapon had to be manually recocked for each shot. This is not the case, the spring was there to absorb the recoil and when compressed recocked the weapon, allowing to to fire just as fast as the new projectile could be dropped into the 'breech'.
Whilst its rivals were recoilless, being a spigot mortar, there was some recoil, but the majority was taken up by the spring. Used correctly by a properly trained operator, the device was effective and safe (for those aiming it).
It was a short range weapon and the dislike by some allied troops could be explained in that many simply didn't want to get that close to an enemy tank and were consequently very negative about it. It took a lot of guts to sit and wait before pulling the trigger, so it is quite understandable.
In 1943 it was all they had. Not perfect, but a whole lot better than nothing.
If you're in a small infantry unit with no heavy backup; tanks or artillery, any force multiplier is going to be welcome. If you can kill your enemy, or even give them something to take pause, then it's a welcome addition to your armoury.
My grandfather was an artilleryman in WWII & they used PIAT's for point/screening defence of the big guns & they liked them. It was highly mobile & quick to get into position in case of enemy breakthrough. If your only other weapon is a rifle or grenade, then even a relatively short range PIAT is a welcome addition. So saying something like a light mortar could be more effective for a similar weight & troops feared them a lot more, but for armour, a PIAT was something the enemy hated.
They were also good against bunkers. The only other option UK forces really had was getting right up close with grenades [or flame throwers]. Much better to have a standoff of up to 115 yd (105 m) than have to creep right up to it.
As to house clearance, another WWII Vet relative said their preferred method was to take the slates off of the roof of a house with a couple of HE [High explosive] mortar rounds then use the mortar to then lob in WP [white phosphorus] rounds which would then burn the house & everything in it to the ground. It saved a lot of lives rather than trying to assault a well defended house.
The PIAT was an ideal weapon for ambushes in urban warfare and guerilla warfare, since it did not produce a backblast. It could be fired from basement windows and it could take out a pillbox.
Canadian officers in Normandy rated the PIAT as the most outstandingly effective weapon in their arsenal. It accounted for 7% of all German tank kills in the British and Canadian fronts in Normandy with aerial rockets from ground attack aircraft like Typhoons at 6%. The PIAT could and did take out Panthers unlike the Bazooka. It was a lethal weapon.
These are all before my time but I believe I would rather carry the bazooka. My generation had the L.A.W to play with. I am enjoying your videos. Keep up the good work.
yep I had the LAW too, but it was never going to kill a tank, a BMP was a different story or a bunker
whoever replaced the LAW rocket with the AT4 should be thrown to a pen of half starved hogs to be ate alive!!!
4:28 The Squares have left the building.
1:08 The apostrophe: Never used correctly if and when it is used.
The PIAT was honestly a pretty decent tool for it's time, was able to be used indoors, smokeless/silent, and could double as a sudo indirect fire weapon. Yes, the spring launch is not feasible at all any later than ww2, though during ww2, it proved at least adequate to its job.
It is probably also worth noting that the title is a bit misleading due to the fact that there is no rocket in the PIAT. So this cannot be a rocket launcher like the title suggests....
the trouble about non military chaps discussing a weapon is they miss most of the important benefits of this weapon. It was almost silent and smokeless, the trouble with all the other AT weapons is that when you fired it you basically told the entire world where you were before you could hide, with the PIAT if you missed the tank and any infantry supporting them still had to work out where you were, and I am aware that standing up and reloading was not an option but hiding was, and there was no second shot with a panzerfaust either. Just as amazing was the ability to shoot inside a house at a tank outside, not possible with any other AT weapon because the backblast would fry you. Most of these weapons were used in ambush or tank stalking parties and not as part of a liner prepared defense, that was what AT guns were for. The range it was used and effective at was actually the same if not more than the early panzerfaust and bazookas, the PIAT having much more penetrating power than either. Another weapon that scored highly in post action reports was the BREN gun, everyone would tell you the bren was inferior to the MG42, everyone that is except those who actually used them in combat. Most of your negative reports seem to come from those training and not in the front line, those same soldiers I am sure also complained that the forks they were issued with did not scoop up bully beef properly, as troops in those circumstances complain about everything as is their god given right in the British army.
It's already been mentioned. But I'll repeat it. The PIAT does not fire rockets. That is the American bazooka and the German Panzershrek rocket launcher.
The PIAT is a spigot mortar bomb dispenser. It uses a steel spigot and explosive to launch the HEAT shaped charge bomb.
I was wondering if you were going to mention the 16th Field Company, Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers PIAT Universal Carrier or PIAT truck that they created in the field.
A megaprojects on the lexus LS400 would make a good video the shear effort put into that car is lets just say unmatched to this day
I carried the last bazooka issued to the U.S Army in the 80s, the M67 recoiless rifle . It weighed 44 lbs and was a bear to carry. At least it was more effective than the PIAT.
The M67 wasn’t a ‘bazooka’ which is a term used to describe a family of rocket launchers. As you say, the M67 was a recoilless which is an entirely different category of weapon.
A recoilless gun/rifle uses a form of propellant that is ‘all burnt on launch’. A rocket - like the M72 - takes its fuel with it in the form of a motor.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 You are correct. To me it was a bazooka at the time.
It's interesting that the Canadians found that PIATs scared off German armour. At Pegasus Bridge, a single PIAT held up a tank column - because the Germans thought the British had several of their feared anti-tank guns with them.
I think the PIAT's advantages in terms of surprise and ambush would certainly help. I think I wouldn't mind carrying one in an urban environment, and in that case I would prefer it to the other options too, for the simple facts that it leaves no smoke and you can fire it from a small room if you have to.
I think this is one of those things that is a pain in the backside to carry, unwieldy, clumsy, and hard to load...but if you hit a tank with it, its dying. Every time. And if you're using it properly, you'll be close enough to get that hit.